Why the european elite tank is not a Leopard 2 mbt revolution?

Seele07 · Nov 7th 2019, 8:40pm

Hi I am back and also my enthusiasm for the Leopard 2

.
First the idea for Elite units are great and I love the idea.
Also the different powers for the 3 doctrines are nice.
But I am wondering that the european elite tank is a Challanger II Black Night.
Why a british tank?
May be in some Month or Years, GB is outside of the European Union and now the Elite tank is a british tank :?:

Why the Elite tank is not a Leopard 2 mbt revolution?

Leopard 2.mbt png.png

Eternus · Nov 7th 2019, 9:29pm

Does it matter more than fact that EU super tank is OP, compared to other versions?

ThePanda · Nov 7th 2019, 9:47pm

Isn't the Leopard 2 already used as the regular EU Tier 3 MBT?

Seele07 · Nov 7th 2019, 9:56pm

The regular used european tank tier 3 is the Leopard 2 A7.
Also the Challanger 2 is used in tier 2 and the black night is a upgraded Challanger 2
The Leopard 2 mbt revolution is the newest Leopard version

Leopard 2 mbt revolution:
Leopard 2.mbt png.png

Leopard 2 A7

Leopard 2 A7.png

Kalrakh · Nov 7th 2019, 10:17pm

Just because Britain leaves the EU, it does not mean, Britain is no longer european.

Switzerland isn't in the EU either and still european.

Europe is a continent, not a specific union.

Seele07 · Nov 7th 2019, 10:20pm

Ok which unit from Switzerland we have?

Kalrakh · Nov 7th 2019, 10:32pm

Switzerland is not really known for their arms industry, so I suspect none. But that is beside the point.

robsen71 · Nov 7th 2019, 11:31pm

Kalrakh wrote:

Switzerland is not really known for their arms industry, so I suspect none. But that is beside the point.

Switzerland used for example the Panzer 51, 58 and 68 which were developped in the 1960s and built in Switzerland. But nowadays, the Swiss Army uses German tank models like the slightly modified Leopard 2 A4,

And to get back to Seele07's question why a Challenger II Black Night and not a Leopard II MBT Revolution. Honestly, I don't know but since the Tier 3 tank is already the Leopard II A7+, I think that the devolopers chose the cancelled Challenger II Black Night project to avoid a German dominance

Vassily Zaizev · Nov 13th 2019, 5:00pm

Kalrakh wrote:

Switzerland is not really known for their arms industry, so I suspect none. But that is beside the point.

Geez

Mate

Sorry to bring it but...Have you heard about Swiss Arms AG ( makers of the SIG-550 series rifles, and SIG-Sauer pistols)....

Oerlikon-Contraves? ( I don't think I really need to introduce this one, should I?)

Not to mention MOWAG, wich produces the Piranha series, wich is probably the most important APC in the world nowadays, with around 30 users of different variants including Canada ( Grizzlys/Bison family) Australia ( ASLAV Family) and the US ( Striker and LAV families) ?

I think, If I was Swiss, my heart would be broken but what you've said, bro

Cheers

BTW: No offence to the british but YES, Challenger 2 sucks as an elite unit choice.

The British Army itself it's trying to upgrade them to get them up to a level comparable to it's european peers.

Best choice would be something akin that Leopard 2/Lerclec hybrid the franco-germans just tried. IMHO

Leo 2 revolution is actually an update for older Leo 2 A4s, to bring them up to modern standards. It's was planned for Indonesia and other export users, so it's not that much of a jump itself....comparable to a Leo 2 A6 or A7.

Kalrakh · Nov 13th 2019, 5:31pm

Vassily Zaizev wrote:

Kalrakh wrote:

Switzerland is not really known for their arms industry, so I suspect none. But that is beside the point.

Geez

Mate

Sorry to bring it but...Have you heard about Swiss Arms AG ( makers of the SIG-550 series rifles, and SIG-Sauer pistols)....

Oerlikon-Contraves? ( I don't think I really need to introduce this one, should I?)

Not to mention MOWAG, wich produces the Piranha series, wich is probably the most important APC in the world nowadays, with around 30 users of different variants including Canada ( Grizzlys/Bison family) Australia ( ASLAV Family) and the US ( Striker and LAV families) ?

I think, If I was Swiss, my heart would be broken but what you've said, bro

Cheers

I lived in Switzerland for about 2 decades, but never heard of any of them. Also none have them seems to produce anything relevant for CON, like tanks, helicopters or stuff. (I did not google but rifles and pistols surely don't matter.)

But honestly, I don't really care about arms industrie in real life. Even though I like to play war games from a tactical perspective, I despise the concept of private arms industrie. Their efforts to sell their products are core reason why a country like the USA is involved in so many pointless wars. Though that is also not irrelevant for this topic.

Opulon · Nov 13th 2019, 5:41pm

Seele07 wrote:

Ok which unit from Switzerland we have?

Checkmate

Vassily Zaizev · Nov 13th 2019, 6:05pm

Kalrakh wrote:

I lived in Switzerland for about 2 decades, but never heard of any of them. Also none have them seems to produce anything relevant for CON, like tanks, helicopters or stuff. (I did not google but rifles and pistols surely don't matter.)
But honestly, I don't really care about arms industrie in real life. Even though I like to play war games from a tactical perspective, I despise the concept of private arms industrie. Their efforts to sell their products are core reason why a country like the USA is involved in so many pointless wars. Though that is also not irrelevant for this topic.

I understand and respect your position

And yes It is a deal that Switzerland, while being a "neutral" nation, it's also a huge arms producers.

But those are mention are big firms: it's products are sold in literally hundreds of coutries.

So I guess They are relevant in a Grand Strategic Simulation

Seele07 wrote:

Ok which unit from Switzerland we have?

Oerlikon-Contraves has being adquired by Rheinmetal now, but it's still in Switzerland, and their products are built there. Along with Bofors ( ironically, yet another arms producer from a "neutral" nation) probably the most important AAA producer in the Western World.

About the products themselves being relevant for the game

We can "consider" many vehicles using 25mm or 35 mms guns in-game to be fitted with "Oerlikon" guns: One example would be Gepard AAA for the European Tech-tree

Also: We kind of arguee that swiss vehicles are already available in-game, as the Striker APC and the LAV light armor are already used by the US, and the Piranha itself is the TIer-2 european amphibious. Also, I don't remember if ADATS it's an evolution of Us/European SAMS or not ( I don't play much european, to be honest

)

If it is, of course it would show the same basic Rapier/Ocelot icon of Tier 1 SAMS BUT.....in any case, that's another swiss one

So I've no complaints: We already do have some swiss gear around.

( BTW: I'm not Swiss myself or anywhere near Switzerland LoL)

Cheers!

Germanico · Nov 13th 2019, 7:14pm

You are aware that we are using the Black Night Challenger as our model...

armyrecognition.com/united_kin…tle_tank_lep_program.html

Vassily Zaizev · Nov 13th 2019, 8:37pm

Germanico wrote:

You are aware that we are using the Black Night Challenger as our model...

armyrecognition.com/united_kin…tle_tank_lep_program.html

Yep!

I like the french and italiand systems on it.

It's lacking a german gun tough XD

But in any case, I would have prefer the Lerclec

Seele07 · Nov 14th 2019, 9:02am

The Black Night has a speed of 40 km/h, thats the snail of the MBTs. In the game this tank must have speed 90

Also the gun is the old gun.
The Leopard 2 mbt revolution is in the most cases a new tank.

rheinmetall-defence.com/de/rhe…ions/news/detail_1408.php

Vassily Zaizev · Nov 18th 2019, 3:55am

Nope, sorry and I understand you liking german designs but no...

Leo 2 Revolution it's an upgrade for older Leo 2 variants. An upgraded designed to increase it's capabilities in urban enviroments, much like Abrams TUSK.

(Thus, it was the one chosen by Singapore, and nearly 100% urbanized nation)

In fact, is not even planned for the newest among those previous Leo 2s, but really older Leo 2 A4s

It doesn't even have an independent tank commander's periscope, a feature most late western, russian and asian tanks possses.

It even retains the older L44 gun, instead of the newer and much-more capable, longer-barrelled L55s.

military-today.com/tanks/revolution.htm

Leo 2 A7 would be more capable all-around.

Seele07 wrote:

Leopard 2 mbt revolution:
Leopard 2.mbt png.png

Sorry to bring that up but that picture is the Leo2/Lerclec hybrid, not the Revolution. Notice the Lerclec turrent on the Leo 2 chassis.

( compare to the Lerclec pic I attached to this post. I also attached an actual Revolution picture, and one of a Revolution compared to an older Leo 2A4 in Singapore...really ugly if you ask me LoL

)

The one system you were probably thinking about is the Leo 2 NG, wich is a much more deep and complete upgrade proposed for the Turkish Leo 2 A4s, but Turkey did not choose it and went wth it's own Altay instead.

military-today.com/tanks/leopard_2ng.htm

In any case...we already have Leo 2s. And Challengers.

Just me, but I would have prefered the oportunity to introduce a new european model, just as El Dorado did with Merkava and Black Eagle.

Lercled fills that role, and it's probably the best Western MBT available now a days ( tough some would argue the Abrams SEp 3 retains that place, it's really a matter of opinion actually)

Russian's would clearly be the Armata ( or T-90 MS is not available) and Asian one could be chose among the ranks of Type 10, Type 99A2 and K2. But European? Just Lerclec is left out and I don't understand why such an interesting design is not available in any form

( well, italian Ariete is left out too, but italians themselves have complained about it's armor, nothing of that sort happened with Lerclec, wich has proved itself the model most able to survive IEDS, RPGs and Kornets in Yemen, unlike saudi Abrams, turkish Leo 2A4s, israeli Merkavas and british Challenger ( or even russian T-90s for that matter) all of them hat gotten some serious mistreatment on later years...As a contrast just 2 Lerclecs had been confirmed lost, one to IEDSs and the other one to a tactical missile attack on it's supply base).

Now, I understand ALL Mbts are vulnerable to RPGS, ATGMS and IEDs: the only ones not believing this are the manufacturer's marketing campaigns, and the people who believes what the manufacturers publish.

BUT....Still, I feel the Lerclec would deserve it's place on this game

Of course, this is just my own personal feeling about it. I understand designers have priorities much, much urgent than introducing what would be basically just a new set of icons and specs for an already populated category: MBTs

Cheers

Alzoc · Mar 21st 2021, 1:14am

Sorry to necro this thread, but it had the merit of already existing and be on the topic of the model used in the EU tech tree.

First the model displayed on the map for the tech 2 MBT of European doctrine is a Challenger 1 while it is supposed to be Challenger 2 (the photo in the data sheet of the unit is actually correct)

This is a Challenger 1 :

Display Spoiler

Notice the internal gun mantlet and the cutaway in the right side of the turret for the TOGS thermal sight

The Challenger 2 on the other hand has a different gun mantlet and the TOGS is positioned on top of the barrel (which is a problem in itself but is fairly distinctive)

Display Spoiler

Also why the hell would you put a Challenger 2 after a Leopard 2A5?
The armor on the Challenger is probably about the same to inferior, and both the mobility and the firepower (Rifled gun < Smoothbore and 2 pieces ammo < monobloc penetrator) of the Challenger also loses to the Leo 2A5.

You could replace the Leopard 2A5 by a 2A4 or a C1 Ariete as a tech 1.
Though argument could be made that while those two definitively lose in the armor department compared to the Challenger 2 they still have an edge mobility wise and their firepower could be superior using modern ammo (2 piece ammunition and rifled gun seriously hamper the potential of APFSDS ammo).

Display Spoiler

Otherwise just put the Challenger 2 as the first tank and replace it by a Leclerc or a Leopard 2A6 for tech 2.

In the same vein on the carrier line in the european doctrine, putting the Queen Elizabeth class as the tech 3 carrier and having the Charle de Gaule class on tech 2 doesn't make any sense either.Their maximum surge rates of sorties are about the same at 120-110 a day for the QE (depending on where you get the number) and around 100 a day for the CdG.
But since the QE is a STOBAR carrier the planes launched from it will have a seriously reduced range and take-off payload (meaning less fuel and weapons) compared to a plane launched from a proper CATOBAR carrier like the CdG.

On top of that the QE have to rely on Merlin helicopter for early warning while the CdG can launch an actual naval AWACS plane (E-2D Hawkeye) (granted what kind of aircrafts can be launched from what type of carrier is not modelled in the game).

So while the CdG is on the small side and is getting old, the only carriers more capable than it are US supercarriers which benefits from their humongous size and can generate sustained sortie rates of 120 a day and go as high as 230 a day on surge rate. And those number are for the Nimitz class, the numbers for the even bigger Ford class will probably be even higher once they manage to work out the kinks of the electromagnetic catapults.

Dealer of Death · Mar 21st 2021, 3:33am

Alzoc wrote:

Sorry to necro this thread, but it had the merit of already existing and be on the topic of the model used in the EU tech tree.

First the model displayed on the map for the tech 2 MBT of European doctrine is a Challenger 1 while it is supposed to be Challenger 2 (the photo in the data sheet of the unit is actually correct)

This is a Challenger 1 :

Display Spoiler

Notice the internal gun mantlet and the cutaway in the right side of the turret for the TOGS thermal sight

The Challenger 2 on the other hand has a different gun mantlet and the TOGS is positioned on top of the barrel (which is a problem in itself but is fairly distinctive)

Display Spoiler

Also why the hell would you put a Challenger 2 after a Leopard 2A5?
The armor on the Challenger is probably about the same to inferior, and both the mobility and the firepower (Rifled gun < Smoothbore and 2 pieces ammo < monobloc penetrator) of the Challenger also loses to the Leo 2A5.

You could replace the Leopard 2A5 by a 2A4 or a C1 Ariete as a tech 1.
Though argument could be made that while those two definitively lose in the armor department compared to the Challenger 2 they still have an edge mobility wise and their firepower could be superior using modern ammo (2 piece ammunition and rifled gun seriously hamper the potential of APFSDS ammo).

Display Spoiler

Otherwise just put the Challenger 2 as the first tank and replace it by a Leclerc or a Leopard 2A6 for tech 2.

In the same vein on the carrier line in the european doctrine, putting the Queen Elizabeth class as the tech 3 carrier and having the Charle de Gaule class on tech 2 doesn't make any sense either.Their maximum surge rates of sorties are about the same at 120-110 a day for the QE (depending on where you get the number) and around 100 a day for the CdG.
But since the QE is a STOBAR carrier the planes launched from it will have a seriously reduced range and take-off payload (meaning less fuel and weapons) compared to a plane launched from a proper CATOBAR carrier like the CdG.

On top of that the QE have to rely on Merlin helicopter for early warning while the CdG can launch an actual naval AWACS plane (E-2D Hawkeye) (granted what kind of aircrafts can be launched from what type of carrier is not modelled in the game).

So while the CdG is on the small side and is getting old, the only carriers more capable than it are US supercarriers which benefits from their humongous size and can generate sustained sortie rates of 120 a day and go as high as 230 a day on surge rate. And those number are for the Nimitz class, the numbers for the even bigger Ford class will probably be even higher once they manage to work out the kinks of the electromagnetic catapults.

Alzoc.jpg

Alzoc · Mar 21st 2021, 4:18am

Well not necessarily so^^

But it is better for a game set in the present/near future to at least get basic stuff straight, otherwise it kills some of the immersion (which is always a nice thing to have).
Differences between a Challenger 1 and 2 are visually obvious even to a layman and both tanks are fairly well known and not some obscures prototypes.
I'm even surprised that nobody called the dev on that before (or I may simply have failed to find it on the forum which is just as likely), especially with the cult of the Challenger 2 which seems to be widespread in the British isles/

Dealer of Death · Mar 21st 2021, 4:52am

Alzoc wrote:

Well not necessarily so^^

But it is better for a game set in the present/near future to at least get basic stuff straight, otherwise it kills some of the immersion (which is always a nice thing to have).
Differences between a Challenger 1 and 2 are visually obvious even to a layman and both tanks are fairly well known and not some obscures prototypes.
I'm even surprised that nobody called the dev on that before (or I may simply have failed to find it on the forum which is just as likely), especially with the cult of the Challenger 2 which seems to be widespread in the British isles/

To each his own, ... for me the game is about the strategy of the data involved, not the pretty pictures or unit names. I would enjoy the game just as much if all the units were creepy clown heads labelled Tank 1, Elite Bomber T2, etc. The pictures are just game pieces to me, like the Monopoly Top Hat.

Share